Men like Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt make pronouncements on abortion, but it
is women who live with the consequences

I can’t imagine what Jeremy Hunt, the new Health Secretary, thought was going to happen when he announced last week that he would like the limit for abortions to be halved to 12 weeks. Mr Hunt is, of course, perfectly entitled to a view on this subject. In the (admittedly unlikely) event that he becomes pregnant, it’s good that he’s thought it through.

But it was rather injudicious to make such a public pronouncement, given his position, and especially when he is so new to the job. It shows a woeful lack of understanding of the sensitivities surrounding this topic. While men like to make pronouncements on such ethical issues, it’s women who have to live with the consequences.

One in three women has had an abortion in the UK, so it’s something that resonates with them in a way it cannot with the likes of Mr Hunt or myself. It is understandable, then, that Mr Hunt’s comments have provoked a ferocious response from women, who fear that having a Health Secretary with such a view heralds a slippery slope to further restrictions and constraints on a woman’s right to choose.

If you give them an inch, they’ll take your womb. There is no scientific reason to have the cut-off point at 12 weeks, any more than 10 weeks or 14 or 20. Each week of gestation represents a host of anatomical and physiological changes, but the ones that concern abortion legislation come when the foetus is capable of independent existence.

The current legal limit for terminating a pregnancy is 24 weeks. Most occur at 13 weeks or less, with only a fraction – less than 2 per cent – occurring after 20 weeks. Even so, this accounts for about 3,000 terminations a year. But, if the truth be told, many doctors are uncomfortable with the current cut-off point.

It is not something we openly discuss, because we know it is a highly emotive area. But privately, many doctors will express discomfort that the current legislation is inherently illogical and inconsistent. Any doctor who has found themselves in the neonatal intensive care unit of a hospital will be acutely aware of it. In the same hospital where doctors are trying to save a premature baby born at, say, 23 weeks, a woman down the corridor is legally allowed to undergo a late-stage abortion on a foetus of the same gestation. So on the one hand we throw considerable money and resources to try to save a baby’s life, while on the other we sanction its destruction.

The vast majority of premature births at 22 or 23 weeks do not survive, and even of the tiny fraction that do, most are severely disabled. But the fact that they can survive undermines the basis on which the 24‑week limit rests.

For a libertarian such as myself, this is difficult. Any suggestion that the limit should be reduced is vociferously denounced as anti-choice. There’s a feeling that the right for pregnant women to determine what happens to their bodies has been hard-fought for, and any concession to reducing the limit risks a slow, insidious erosion of women’s reproductive rights. But that understandable concern shouldn’t be allowed to obscure the very important discussion that needs to be had.

Although it is partly about the choices a woman makes regarding her body, it’s also a larger debate about when society should step in and advocate for the rights of the foetus when they are in conflict with those of the woman. Doctors have, for many years, felt unsure about the arrangement for late-stage abortions because they know that some of the foetuses that are terminated could, in theory, survive.

It seems to me, based on current premature survival rates and medical practice, that a cut-off of 22 weeks would make sense. If we wanted to be cautious, 20 weeks might give a bit of clear water between the upper limit for termination and the lowest biologically plausible limit that a premature baby can survive.

It is important to remember, though, that we are discussing the very extreme, rare cases. We are debating the upper fringe. This should not in any way impact on the vast majority of abortions that take place before 20 weeks, and we should not allow the debate to vilify women who have abortions.

The only reason to change the law on termination – and I think there is a strong case for it – is the medical inconsistency that exists for foetuses in weeks 22 and 23. That’s all. We just need to straighten out an anomaly that health-care professionals have known about for years.

The shameful truth about those 'fitness to work’ tests

Last week I wrote about the controversy surrounding the French company, Atos, which is responsible for undertaking the “fitness to work” assessments on behalf of the Government. These assessments are used to decide if a claimant is entitled to benefits or able to work.

I have been overwhelmed by the response from readers with personal experiences of these assessments, denouncing them as inhumane, inaccurate and not fit for purpose. People shared awful stories of loved ones being declared fit for work, only to die days afterwards. Doctors and nurses wrote to me about patients who had been unfairly rejected. Parents wrote telling of their adult children who are struggling with severe illness but have been declared fit for work.

Most interesting, though, was that several doctors who work for Atos contacted me anonymously. To my surprise, they shared the concerns I had raised about the validity of the assessment tests. One explained that they are forbidden to touch patients, so physical examination is impossible. They are not allowed to ask the patient to walk to assess their mobility. The assessors are not given access to past medical records. All the assessors expressed dismay at the system. It is a truly disgraceful situation that shames us all.

Broadmoor’s key mistake

That Broadmoor psychiatric hospital – one of the most secure establishments in the country – gave Jimmy Savile keys beggars belief. It raises worrying questions about the judgment of professionals who are supposed to be looking after the security of some of the most dangerous people in the country.

Of all the institutions that are implicated in the Savile scandal, you’d think that Broadmoor would have known better.